↓ Skip to main content

AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews—paper 2: defining complexity, formulating scope, and questions

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews—paper 2: defining complexity, formulating scope, and questions
Published in
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, October 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael P. Kelly, Jane Noyes, Robert L. Kane, Christine Chang, Stacey Uhl, Karen A. Robinson, Stacey Springs, Mary E. Butler, Jeanne-Marie Guise

Abstract

The early stages of a systematic review set the scope and expectations. This can be particularly challenging for complex interventions given their multi-dimensional and dynamic nature. This paper builds on concepts introduced in Paper 1 of this series. It describes the methodological, practical and philosophical challenges and potential approaches for formulating the questions and scope of systematic reviews of complex interventions. Further it discusses the use of theory to help organize reviews of complex interventions. Many interventions in medicine, public health, education, social services, behavioral health, and community programs are complex, and they may not fit neatly within the established paradigm for reviews of straight-forward interventions. This paper provides conceptual and operational guidance for these early stages of scope formulation to assist authors of systematic reviews of complex interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 19%
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Unspecified 7 12%
Librarian 6 10%
Other 14 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 29%
Unspecified 10 17%
Social Sciences 9 16%
Psychology 7 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Other 9 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,763,059
of 12,645,670 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#569
of 2,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,776
of 259,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#27
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,645,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,515 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 259,892 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.